Interesting. What stops foxconn from inserting itself (and "selling" services) to buy a bit of land, fill in wetlands, change stream courses, build a lake, etc., then sell the "improved" land to another company? Maybe even begin construction of buildings to then be sold to someone else?

Nothing. Scott Walker is one of the most openly corrupt politicians to ever stay in office. He probably has a back end deal with a"family friend" to make this happen.

I can't wait to vote for the challengers of any one on my ballot that supported this foxconn bs. Also, the WEDC is a fucking joke. Talk about privatizing profits and socializing losses. The Republicans in this state are the biggest hypocrites, picking winners and losers. Free markets my ass. Makes my blood boil (and I tended to vote just right of aisle).

What evidence of corruption does anyone have that could put him away in jail for a long time?

None, or they would have used it, but that doesn't stop people on the Internet from gossiping.

Corruption doesn't necessarily have to be illegal.

Like adultery, for instance, right?

or a gazillion dollar job with a company once he retires from the state job. Maybe not with Foxconn but with a supplier or client of theirs. Wink + nod=

How's that?

> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs.

I always thought tax credits for businesses were more related to numbers rackets than to actual economic gain.

Here's a thought experiment:

I take one person from my company, fire him, and split the job into two people. Both get paid less than half of the original guy I fired. Yet one of the keeps the old title. Did I create a job? Yes. Did I grow the economy? Doubtful.

While splitting one job into two seems far fetched, it's not that far fetched to split 8 jobs into 10, say.

Actually, you arguably shrank it if the new lower salaries both render the receivers eligible for a greater share of public benefits while subjecting them to lower marginal tax rates.

Yeah that's a good point, but that also means there's more rent being paid, more food being bought. So it's probably at best a wash.

> I always thought tax credits for businesses were more related to numbers rackets than to actual economic gain.

Agreed. And when the businesses receiving these credits are primarily "creating" low-paying service sector positions, the picture is even more bleak.

> Did I create a job? Yes. Did I grow the economy? Doubtful.

Probably depends on the salary range(s) involved and how deep into "mostly discretionary income" the original employee was (and, I guess, how much they spent v stashed that discretionary income).

Living around the great lakes, and knowing what China's like due to lax enforcement of environmental regulations, this kind of stuff terrifies me. Michigan didn't do this kind of kowtowing trying to get Foxconn (to be honest I don't think it would be possible to after the whole Flint water issue), but who knows what kinds of problems will be introduced throughout the watershed when Foxconn exercises any of these allowances.

>I've never heard of anything like this. Is this common?

With the scope creep of what is a "wetland" (1)(2) is basically an approval to construct a facility. Wetland regulations are so broad that you basically can't build a large building and a parking lot for the people who will work in it without 9000+ hours of back and fourth with the EPA and local agencies.

Last I heard (2017) many man-made drainage ditches would be considered wetlands.

(6) is basically an authorization to run power lines to the facility. (3) and(4) are basically an authorization to pave driveways to connect to existing infrastructure

Basically all but five are the state saying "we're not gonna bait and switch by bogging you down in red tape once you select a location and get the ball rolling"

(5) is the one where they're going out of their way to sweetening the deal and depending on the site selected I really don't see a big issue with it because Foxconn is still subject to federal rules so they're not gonna build a factory somewhere that the risk of environmental impact is large.

My problem here is that Foxconn can get quick and easy approval for a facility but Noname Joe's Lumber Supply has to tailor their plans skirt around the laws if they want to build a facility.

Wisconsin actually has had a "job creator" tax credit since Walker got into office.

> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs.

They already do! It's called revenue.

>> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs.

>They already do! It's called revenue.

I give you a job. I pay you $500. You generate $100 of revenue.

I'm pretty sure I just lost $400, you gained less than $400 after taxes, and the IRS gets to enjoy the spread.

Edit: changed to reflect that there are more winners than just the IRS

1. You're a bad employer, if you're losing $400 per employee, and deserve to be run out of business as per capitalistic market efficiency.

2. I just "won" $300.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed-ish. Assuming 40% tax, which seems high (unless you live in a country that has nationalised health care)

3. Neither of these things relate to being paid to create jobs. You're not wrong, you're just not on thread.

Just for reference, 40% tax is still high for a country with nationalized health care (Canada):

https://simpletax.ca/calculator

At $150k/yr, your marginal tax rate is close to 40%, but your overall tax rate is more like 31%. I'm in Saskatchewan, and every time I've played with different income levels, taking into account the exchange rate, we end up paying very similar amounts of all-in income tax, with ours including (most) health care. (Comparing with California)

Once you consider the typical US co-payments to actually use health care, it's cheaper in Canada. Getting an MRI in California cost me close to $1K out of pocket, despite fancy insurance that paid most of it. In Canada it's pre-paid in taxes.

Also when you consider that we don't have to pay anything for insurance to cover that. The MRI costs $0 out of pocket, covered by the healthcare that is already factored into our equal-cost taxes.

There's still a benefit to having health insurance for covering stuff not covered by the gov't plan: vision, dental, some fraction of prescription drugs, etc. I do have a health plan through work, but I think it costs somewhere around $50-75/month to cover all of that stuff for my family.

Absolutely. If you add decent insurance to income taxes as a basic cost of living, it's cheaper in Canada. I moved to Canada from California and even before becoming a permanent resident I needed to use the health service as a family member was sick. I will be forever grateful for the excellent service and zero cost at point of use even for my family as (tax paying) temporary workers. I'm now raising Canadian kids to do their part to pay back the system that saved their mother's life.

It's pretty wild. At one point, I forgot to renew my health card and had a bit of a fall that tweaked my wrist. I went to the clinic by my house and they warned me that I'd have to pay out-of-pocket for the services, but I could submit the receipt after renewing my health card and get reimbursed.

Doc felt my wrist, asked me to go to the radiology clinic next door for a digital X-Ray, and to come back to discuss what he saw on it. Doctor visit: $30, X-Ray: $30.

When the two options are: use your provincial health card or pay cash, costs can stay relatively low.

1: isn't that the business plan of most vc backed startups

I wish no business could be paid simply to create jobs. This is just distorting the economy. Arguably, the pressure to spend less on humans where possible drives technological advancement.

One of the most sickening things I've ever read.